Opinion
2d Juv. No. B300551
05-18-2020
In re M.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.M., Defendant and Appellant.
Gerald Peters, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Lindsay Boyd, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. YJ40037)
(Los Angeles County)
M.M. appeals from the judgment entered after the juvenile court sustained an amended petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) for assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily harm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and attempted second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664/221). The trial court declared the offenses felonies, determined that the maximum confinement period was five years four months, issued a protective order not to contact the victim, and ordered Camp Community Placement for five to seven months. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
On April 25, 2019, 14-year-old M.G. got off the bus near the corner of Western Avenue and Martin Luther King Boulevard in Los Angeles. Appellant saw M.G. and "told his homegirls to chase after me." Appellant and M.G. were in the eighth grade and went to the same school. M.G. ran towards a parking lot, trying to call her mom.
Appellant shouted "'she from twinkies [i.e., that M.G. was affiliated with a gang], there she go,'" and commanded the group (five girls and a second male) to chase her. After M.G. was pulled down by the hair, "they just all started kicking me." The beating went on for four minutes and appellant hit and kicked M.G. in the ribs. Others held M.G. down, grabbed her hand, and tried to take her phone, yelling "'let it go, let it go,'" and "give me your phone [bitch]."
M.G. hung onto the phone but when she got up, "one girl hit me one last time, [and] then they all ran." M.G. identified appellant in a six-pack lineup as one of the attackers who tried to take her phone.
Substantial Evidence
Appellant contends that the evidence does not support the finding that he committed attempted robbery. As in any substantial evidence case, all conflicts in the evidence are resolved in favor of the trial court's findings, and the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, accepting every reasonable inference the trial court could have drawn from the evidence. (In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 924.)
Attempted robbery requires the specific intent to commit robbery plus a direct, ineffectual act beyond mere preparation towards its commission. (People v. Medina (2007) 41 Cal.4th 685, 694.) A person aids and abets an attempted robbery where he or she has the intent to facilitate or encourage commission of the crime, and by act or advice, aids, promotes, encourages or instigated the commission of the crime. (People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1158, 1164.) "Among the factors which may be considered in determining aiding and abetting are: presence at the crime scene, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense." (In re Juan G. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1, 5; In re Lynette G. (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 1087, 1094.) Those factors are present here.
Appellant told the group that "'she from twinkies'" and to get her. He hit and kicked M.G. before his cohorts tried to take M.G.'s phone. The group shouted "'fuck twinkies'" and "bitch." "[O]ne girl hit me one last time, [and] then they all ran." Appellant "left with them." It was strong circumstantial evidence. (In re Lynette G., supra, 54 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1094-1095; People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1054.) "'That is sufficient to make him a participant in the crime.'" (People v. Ketchum (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 615, 619.) We reject the argument that robbery is divisible into a series of separate acts or the assault was completed before appellant's cohort tried to take the phone. "[Appellant's] guilt is not to be weighed at each step of the robbery, as it unfolds." (People v. Gomez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 249, 258.)
The judgment (order sustaining the amended petition and wardship order) is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN, J. We concur:
GILBERT, P. J.
TANGEMAN, J.
Nancy Newman, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
Gerald Peters, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Lindsay Boyd, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.